236
Under the rule of an aristocracy it frequently happens, on the contrary, that while the high officers are receiving munificent salaries, the inferior ones have not more than enough to procure the necessaries of life. The reason of this fact is easily discoverable from causes very analogous to those to which I have just alluded. If a democracy is unable to conceive the pleasures of the rich, or to see them without envy, an aristocracy is slow to understand, or, to speak more correctly, is unacquainted with the privations of the poor. The poor man is not (if we use the term aright) the fellow of the rich one; but he is a being of another species. An aristocracy is therefore apt to care but little for the fate of its subordinate agents: and their salaries are only raised when they refuse to perform their service for too scanty a remuneration.
It is the parsimonious conduct of democracy toward its principal officers, which has countenanced a supposition of far more economical propensities than any which it really possesses. It is true that it scarcely allows the means of honorable subsistence to the individuals who conduct its affairs; but enormous sums are lavished to meet the exigencies or to facilitate the enjoyments of the people.[1] The money raised by taxation may be better employed, but it is not saved. In general, democracy gives largely
- ↑ See the American budgets for the cost of indigent citizens and gratuitous instruction. In 1831, 50,000l. were spent in the state of New York for the maintenance of the poor; and at least 200,000l. were devoted to gratuitous instruction. (Williams's New York Annual Register, 1832, pp. 205, 243.) The state of New York contained only 1,900,000 inhabitants in the year 1830; which is not more than double the amount of population in the department du Nord in France.
salaries of the agents of the federal government. I have added the salaries attached to the corresponding officers in France, to complete the comparison:—
| UNITED STATES. | FRANCE. | |||||
| Treasury Department. | Ministère des Finances. | |||||
| Messenger | $ 700 | 150 | l. | Huissier, 1,500 fr. | 60 | l. |
| Clerk with lowest salary | 1,000 | 217 | Clerk with lowest salary, 1,000 to 1,800 fr. | 40 to 72 | ||
| Clerk with highest salary | 1,600 | 347 | Clerk with highest salary, 3,200 to 3,600 fr. | 128 to 144 | ||
| Chief clerk | 2,000 | 434 | Secretaire-general, 20,000 fr. | 800 | ||
| Secretary of state | 6,000 | 1,300 | The minister, 80,000 fr. | 3,200 | ||
| The president | 25,000 | 5,400 | The king, 12,000,000 fr. | 480,000 | ||
I have perhaps done wrong in selecting France as my standard of comparison. In France the democratic tendencies of the nation exercise an ever-increasing influence upon the government, and the chambers show a disposition to raise the lowest salaries and to lower the principal ones. Thus the minister of finance, who received 160,000 fr. under the empire, receives 80,000 fr. in 1835; the directeurs-généraux of finance, who then received 50,000 fr. now receive only 20,000 fr.
